[B]Hey... I have to write a 6 paragraph AP US HISTORY DBQ essay and i need help.... the question is: " the decision of the Jackson administration to remove the cherokee indians to lands west of the mississipi river in the 1830s was more a reformulation of the national policy that had been in effect since the 1790's than a change in that policy."
Assess the validity of the generalization with reference to the MORAL, POILTICAL, CONSTITUTIONAL, AND PRACTICAL concerns that shaped the indian policy between 1789 and mid 1830s. :confused:
I need to divide my essay by having and intro then talking about moral conerns then political, constitutional, and then practical and end with a conclusion can some one help me plsssssssssssssssssss. :confused:
OK. I just got done with this stuff. Basically, Jackson had the power to stop the removal of the Indians, but he didn't. Jackson hated them, so he just wanted the land for the "good Americans". The Indians had the land before anyone, but they were still pushed off. Jackson also did it to appease his political party. The question is asking if he was just interpreting the Constitution differently, or if he was just changing it to fit his own adgenda. Basically, Jackson hated the Indians, and other people wanted the land, so he decided to kill two birds with one stone. Hope this was some help. :P
You want me to do what again?!
Why Me?
hey thanks... i got that though... i mean i understand the basic but what am i suppose dto write in each paragraphs including quotes from the documents... im not doing too good in history at the moment so our teacher gave us the essay question before hand and it will be on the test... and i need to bring my grade back up you have any idea of what i should write for moral, political, consitutional and practical concerns please!!!
OK. For moral, find outside sources that talk from the Cherokee point of view. Go with tear jerker kind of stuff. You know: how hard it was for them, what they went through, yada yada yada. Also throw in opinion on how wrong it was if you think that way. For political, go with the argument that he was just doing it to further his own agenda within his political party. The "hardworking white American" wanted the land for farming, families, etc, and the Indians were just in the way. So, even though the actual act wasn't implimented during his administration, he still had the power to stop it and didn't. He's the one who signed the bill. Constitutional: I guess you could go with the fact that he's the pres. and he had the power to do whatever he wanted. I don't really know how to approach that. Sorry. And finally: practical: revert back to the approach that it was the land that they wanted, and it wasn't that practial to have people who didn't know how to properly use it lived on it. For a counter argument (going with Jackson) go to the fact that he had no control over the actual implication. He was just the pen boy. Figure out the intro from all the information you get. Conclusion-go with what you feel. If this was wrong, put that spin on it. If you agreed with it, go with that. Hope this helps. If anyone else out there has any other ideas where I couldn't help, feel free to step in!
You want me to do what again?!
Why Me?